Easley v. Haywood et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in all respects re 48 Report and Recommendation and 49 Report and Recommendations, denying 24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction/TRO, denying 30 Motion to Freeze Assets/Injunction. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 2/2/2010. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/3/2010: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION DAVID EASLEY, Plaintiff, v. GARY HAYWOOD, et al., Defendant. : : : : : : : : : NO. 1:08-CV-00601
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (docs. 48, 49), to which Plaintiff filed an objection (doc. 55). Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS For the reasons indicated herein, the the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations. Plaintiff is an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville, Ohio, who brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 matter alleging that corrections officers used excessive force against him and that corrections medical staff denied him medical care (doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks both a preliminary injunction to
protect him against alleged use of force (doc. 24), and to freeze the assets of all Defendants in this matter (doc. 30). The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff's motions and determined that he had inadequately alleged facts warranting the injunctive relief he seeks (docs. 48, 49). Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had failed to show he has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims, or
that he will suffer irreparable harm absent an injuction (Id. citing U.S. v. Bayshore Associates, Inc., 934 F.2d 1391, 1398 (6th Cir. 1991)). As for his request for an injuction against the use
of force, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff seeks an Order from the Court to remedy constitutional deficiencies yet to be proven, relief that is beyond the scope of injunctive relief (doc. 48, citing Southern Ohio Milk Sales, Inc. V. Martin. 924 F.2d 98, 102 (6th Cir. 1991)). For these reasons the Magistrate Judge
recommended that both of Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief be denied (docs. 48, 49). In his Response in Opposition, Plaintiff does not address the substance of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, but rather contends that the state has failed to provide him discovery that he has requested (doc. 55). However, the Court
notes that all of the discovery at issue is already the subject of a number of motions to compel that are before the Magistrate Judge. As such, the question of whether Plaintiff is entitled to such discovery is before the Magistrate Judge, not before the
undersigned. Accordingly, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (docs. 48, 49), well-reasoned and
correct, and therefore ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's opinions in all respects, and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction/TRO (doc. 24), and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion 2
to Freeze Assets/Injunction (doc. 30).
Dated: February 2, 2010
/s/ S. Arthur Spiegel S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?